In an effort to wean states away from the traditional "grant reimbursement" model of highway funding, and further the innovative financing concepts developed under the existing ISTEA, the Clinton Administration has proposed a change in federal law that would allow states to charge tolls on existing so-called "free" interstates. 

In the past, states have been allowed to levy tolls only as a way to build a section of interstate highway. Under the provision, states could generate revenue using a federally funded highway, which has generated criticism. 

In addition to providing new revenue, the tolling provision would provide a means to permit states to impose so-called "congestion pricing". That's a "traffic demand management" theory, popular among planners, in which excessive congestion is discouraged by forcing drivers to pay to drive at peak periods, rather than increase capacity through construction of added lanes or new facilities. 

While long considered politically unfeasible, congestion pricing is thought in some very high levels of U.S. transportation planning to be the only way to reconcile growing traffic volume with a "sustainable", environmentally acceptable transportation plan. In a further slap at road building, some congestion pricing models would prohibit congestion pricing tolls to be used to improve roads; instead, they would be earmarked for improvement of mass transit. 

Clinton's proposed National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) was released March 12, and the tolling provision immediately became the "hot button" of the bill with the national press. Following are comments that day by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mortimer Downey on NEXTEA and its tolling provisions. 

The president's proposal lifts the restrictions on states putting tolls on interstate roads. How would that work, and can you explain some of the logic behind it? 

Downey: State and local governments are looking for ways to increase the amount of investment that they can make in new and expanded and safer transportation systems. They are now not permitted to put tolls other interstate highways. They can put tolls on bridges and tunnels that are on the interstate system, but not the highway sections themselves. So under the president's proposal, the states would have that option. We don't mandate it, we don't tell them they have to do it, there are legal restrictions as to how high those tolls could be, but we would give them that flexibility if that's a way they want to serve their public by increasing the amount of construction they can do. 

Doesn't that increase the price of travel? 

We want to see better, safer transportation systems with greater capacity. Those need to be paid for in one way or another, and tolls would actually allocate those costs to the users. 

Would states be able to keep the money? 

The states or local governments could keep the money, but only if it's reinvested into transportation -- and it would be their judgment, not ours. 

The federal government would keep none of it? 

The federal government would not. The federal government paid for 90 percent of the original highway construction, but the state and local governments would get the benefit if they chose to put tolls on those systems. 

You said there was a legal restriction on how much. What is that? 

In 1991 the law was changed to take it out of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation and turn it over to the courts. As I recall, the standard is just and reasonable. So anyone who was putting tolls in place would have to show that they were just and reasonable. 

Do you have any estimates at all about how much [money would be generated]? 

I don't know that even a single state will do this. But we believe that in some parts of the country -- especially in congested metropolitan areas -- they would consider it. 

Which states are the most interested? 

We don't have any specific applications at this time. 

What was the impetus, then, if there isn't a groundswell for it? 

We want to give a lot of flexibility, as this bill provides for choice of transportation modes, choice of ways to finance it. 

You're really encouraging it, though, aren't you? 

We would like to see states have the ability to make these decisions; we're not saying they should or shouldn't put tolls on the roads. 

Do you have any indication that Congress is going to follow through on this bill and, if so, on what time line? 

We know that Congress will be active on this bill because all of our highway and transit programs expire Sept. 30. 

But will they take your lead on it? 

They will, I think, take our proposal seriously as they put their bill together. There will be a lot of arguments about how much money and who gets the money and what programs it goes for. But there will be a bill before the end of the year. The states and local governments need this to keep their investments going. 

Senators Moynihan and Roth have a proposal to take a half a cent from the 4.3 cent transportation fuel tax and give it to Amtrak for capital expenditures. Does the administration support that idea? 

We have a variation of it in our bill. We do support Amtrak receiving more in the way of capital and we do support it coming from the highway use tax, but not from the 4.3 cents that was allocated for deficit reduction. 

Are you proposing any changes in the funding formula? And could you talk a little bit about the environment protections, especially the wetlands issue? 

Yes. We are proposing changes to the funding formula. We are updating the factors to include today's conditions in terms of population, in terms of transportation needs, in terms of use of the system, and with some factors to assure that states that generate a lot of the fuel tax get a substantial portion of it back, or states that have benefited in the past are not abruptly dropped. So there will be some changes to the formula. We think they meet a middle ground between a number of factions that are now arguing. On the environment side, the bill includes $1.3 billion for the congestion management air quality program each year. It also makes eligible such activities as restoring wetlands and it strongly supports what we call transportation enhancements, which include bike trails, pedestrian facilities, historic preservation, scenic byways, and the like. So there's a strong environment component to this bill. 

How would the tolls work? For example, could something like this be put into practice by, say, the District of Columbia? 

The District of Columbia, under this proposal, could find a way to collect tolls on the interstate systems within the district. There are, obviously, considerable technical issues, such as finding environmentally sound ways to collect the tolls. We expect, should states go towards toll collection, they will probably do it electronic fashion so that there is not the kind of backups that we all remember on the Connecticut Turnpike or facilities like that. 

Does this require congressional approval or can it be done with a White House mandate? 

No, this would require congressional approval. This would be part of their consideration in the legislation. And they'll hear, I'm sure, from states. They'll also hear from user groups and others who would be opposed. Like anything in this bill, it will be -- the outcome will be the working of the legislative process. Virtually every state would receive more dollars under this legislation [NEXTEA] than they received under the ISTEA bill that's about to expire. As to relative allocations, about half the states will get a little more than they got in the past and about half the states would get a little less than they have in the past. I think that compares favorably to some of the [devolution] plans that are now being considered on the Hill, which would radically shift funds from one group of states to another. This we don't think is the final formula -- that will come out of the legislative process -- but I think it shows that a formula can be developed that meets the interests of all of America. 

One other toll question. Is it the administration's hope that the state tolls would be able to replace federal expenditures on the transportation system? 

No, we're not putting this forward in the thought that it would replace federal expenditures; we put it forward in the thought that states need a lot of resources, state, federal, and other, to keep up with the aging of their transportation systems. This could be one more way to raise those dollars. Gas taxes are one way. Other tax forms are another way. But user fees are a good way to get at a fair allocation of those who benefit from the system. The federal government is putting in a base level of investment, but we do feel we have analyses that show more investment could improve the economy. It's more than we can afford in a balanced budget world, but we think there are good projects out there that, if they went in place, would serve the public and would increase economic activity. 

And these [funds] would be earmarked for state facilities, as opposed to replacing federal maintenance? 

These resources could be used as part of the state's program to enhance its surface transportation investments.